Apologies for my silence, but as announced on 21 June in my "Materialism" response to BBella, I've been away for a few days, attending my elder son's wedding. Advance notice: I shall also be away and incommunicado for about ten days as from 29 June. -MATT: What I'm most interested in, is dhw's idea about the fact that one can be a theistic-agnostic or an atheist-agnostic.He typically challenges agnostic definitions as this, based upon the fact that he prefers to adhere to the dictionary-Huxley definition of agnosticism.
 
ROMANSH: I'd have to hear dhw's thoughts but my take if we take a strong atheist definition - someone who believes any god does not exist then by just about any definition this person is an atheist.-I agree. See below.
 
ROMANSH: The same person could turn around say but there is no way of showing conclusively that any god and therefore does not 'know' there is not a god.
Same way I might believe there might be life outside of the solar system in far off galaxies, I have no way of knowing this.
So the strong atheist might very atheistic in his personal views his philosophical view is quite agnostic. - Hence agnostic atheist.-This is a totally different use of "agnostic", since life outside the solar system has nothing to do with the existence of God. You are actually saying that Mr X believes there is no God, but he doesn't believe or disbelieve in life outside the solar system ... two unrelated concepts. (See below.)-ROMANSH: Of course we may accuse this person of fideism but I would prefer to avoid this as I could also be very easily be guilty of fideism on some other subject.
Our definitions are our axioms and we build our logic and positions on these axioms.-While I agree with most of the speaker's comments, I certainly don't agree with his definitions. The dictionary (Huxley) version of agnosticism relates to the impossibility of knowing whether God exists or not. From an epistemological standpoint, however, this is merely stating the obvious, as no-one can "know" such a thing, and so all of us would have to be classified as agnostics. Therefore I have followed the more modern version, which = neither belief nor disbelief in a god or gods. For the purposes of definition, I see it as essential to distinguish between belief, non-belief, and disbelief. The speaker's attempt to equate atheism with a "lack of belief" therefore obliterates the distinction between atheism and agnosticism (not to mention the fact that a "lack" usually indicates that something is missing ... i.e. it ought to be there!). As I see it, atheists believe that there is no such thing as a god or gods. A theist believes in a god or gods. Matt, if you doubt these definitions, then please tell me what you would call someone who believes there is no such thing as a god or gods, and what you would call someone who has not made up his mind either way.-As for the "fact that one can be a theistic-agnostic or an atheist-agnostic", I wouldn't call it a fact at all! By lumping the two categories together, you put them on a par, which is therefore a contradiction in terms. I would accept that someone might be an agnostic with leanings towards theism or atheism.